Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25144776›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2014

Ex-ante benefit-cost analysis of the elimination of a Glossina palpalis gambiensis population in the Niayes of Senegal.

Fanny Bouyer, Momar Talla Seck, Ahmadou H Dicko, Baba Sall, Mbargou Lo, Marc J B Vreysen, Eduardo Chia, Jérémy Bouyer, Abdrahmane Wane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Mapping landscape friction to locate isolated tsetse populations that are candidates for elimination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fanny BouyerUnité Mixte de Recherche Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Montpellier, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), Montpellier, France; Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Laboratoire National d'Elevage et de Recherches Vétérinaires, Dakar, Sénégal.
Momar Talla SeckInstitut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Laboratoire National d'Elevage et de Recherches Vétérinaires, Dakar, Sénégal.
Ahmadou H DickoInstitut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Laboratoire National d'Elevage et de Recherches Vétérinaires, Dakar, Sénégal.
Baba SallDirection des Services Vétérinaires, Dakar, Senegal.
Mbargou LoInstitut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Laboratoire National d'Elevage et de Recherches Vétérinaires, Dakar, Sénégal.
Marc J B VreysenInsect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna, Austria.
Eduardo ChiaCirad, Unité Mixte de Recherche INRA-CIRAD Innovation, Montpellier, France.
Jérémy BouyerUnité Mixte de Recherche Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Montpellier, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), Montpellier, France; Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Laboratoire National d'Elevage et de Recherches Vétérinaires, Dakar, Sénégal.
Abdrahmane WaneCirad, Unité Mixte de Recherche CIRAD-INRA-SupAgro Selmet, Montpellier, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2005, the Government of Senegal embarked on a campaign to eliminate a Glossina palpalis gambiensis population from the Niayes area (∼ 1000 km(2)) under the umbrella of the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomosis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC). The project was considered an ecologically sound approach to intensify cattle production. The elimination strategy includes a suppression phase using insecticide impregnated targets and cattle, and an elimination phase using the sterile insect technique, necessary to eliminate tsetse in this area. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThree main cattle farming systems were identified: a traditional system using trypanotolerant cattle and two "improved" systems using more productive cattle breeds focusing on milk and meat production. In improved farming systems herd size was 45% lower and annual cattle sales were €250 (s.d. 513) per head as compared to €74 (s.d. 38) per head in traditional farming systems (p<10-3). Tsetse distribution significantly impacted the occurrence of these farming systems (p = 0.001), with 34% (s.d. 4%) and 6% (s.d. 4%) of improved systems in the tsetse-free and tsetse-infested areas, respectively. We calculated the potential increases of cattle sales as a result of tsetse elimination considering two scenarios, i.e. a conservative scenario with a 2% annual replacement rate from traditional to improved systems after elimination, and a more realistic scenario with an increased replacement rate of 10% five years after elimination. The final annual increase of cattle sales was estimated at ∼ €2800/km(2) for a total cost of the elimination campaign reaching ∼ €6400/km(2). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Despite its high cost, the benefit-cost analysis indicated that the project was highly cost-effective, with Internal Rates of Return (IRR) of 9.8% and 19.1% and payback periods of 18 and 13 years for the two scenarios, respectively. In addition to an increase in farmers' income, the benefits of tsetse elimination include a reduction of grazing pressure on the ecosystems.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisInsect ControlTrypanosomiasis, AfricanTsetse FliesAnimalsCattleSenegal

Identifiers

PMID25144776
PMCPMC4140673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.